ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH WITH MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-7628
Izabela Slezak
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5489-0481
Abstract
Qualitative research conducted in communities at risk of social exclusion raises complex ethical, epistemological, and methodological challenges that extend beyond formal procedural compliance. This article critically reflects on such challenges, drawing on the authors’ long-term research experience with people with intellectual disabilities and women engaged in sex work, as well as on existing methodological literature. Rather than presenting a standard empirical report, the text develops an essay-based reflection on the relational, contextual, and emotionally embedded nature of qualitative inquiry in stigmatized settings. The article argues that ethical research practice should be understood as an ongoing, situated process of negotiation rather than a fixed set of rules. Key tensions emerge around informed consent, participant vulnerability, researcher positionality, emotional engagement in fieldwork, and the boundaries of confidentiality and disclosure. These issues are amplified in contexts where participants are subject to stigma, institutional dependency, or social invisibility. The discussion is structured around four interrelated dimensions: linguistic sensitivity in constructing research categories, barriers to accessing marginalized communities, the emotional labor embedded in fieldwork, and tensions between confidentiality and scientific transparency. The analysis highlights how methodological decisions are deeply intertwined with ethical consequences and how researchers inevitably participate in co-constructing the social realities they study. Finally, the article proposes a set of methodological and ethical orientations for conducting qualitative research in such contexts, emphasizing reflexivity, relational ethics, flexible research design, and participatory engagement. While grounded in studies on intellectual disability and sex work, the conclusions are applicable to a broader range of marginalized populations and contribute to ongoing debates on ethical qualitative inquiry.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
Angrosino, M. (2010). Badania etnograficzne i obserwacyjne. PWN.
Archibald, M. M., & Munce, S. E. P. (2015). Challenges and strategies in the recruitment of participants for qualitative research. University of Alberta Health Sciences Journal, 11(1), 34–37.
Babbie, E. (2006). Badania spo?eczne w praktyce. PWN.
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2008). Niepe?nosprawno??. Sic!
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1983). Spo?eczne tworzenie rzeczywisto?ci. Pa?stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Chomczy?ski, P. (2006). Wybrane problemy etyczne w badaniach. Obserwacja uczestnicz?ca ukryta. Przegl?d Socjologii Jako?ciowej, 2(1), 68-87.
Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Dalton, A. J., & McVilly, K. R. (2004). Ethics guidelines for international, multicenter research involving people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 1(2), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2004.04010.x
Dobson, C. (2008). Conducting research with people not having the capacity to consent to their participation: A practical guide for researchers. British Psychological Society.
Dziuban, A., & Ratecka, A. (2017). Sprostytuowane, zranione, wrobione: Konstruowanie reprezentacji pracownic seksualnych w dyskursie abolicyjnym. Lud, 101, 123–145.
Flick, U. (2010). Projektowanie badania jako?ciowego. PWN.
Hasson-Ohayon, I., Hertz, I., Vilchinsky, N., & Kravetz, S. (2014). Attitudes toward the sexuality of persons with physical versus psychiatric disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(2), 236–241.
Huysamen, M., & Sanders, T. (2021). Institutional ethics challenges to sex work researchers: Committees, communities, and collaboration. Sociological Research Online, 26(4), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211002847
Israel, M. (2021). Contesting research ethics: The global position. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity (pp. 51–65). Springer.
Irvine, J. M. (2012). Can’t ask, can’t tell: How institutional review boards keep sex in the closet. Contexts, 11(2), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212446457
Kacperczyk, A. (1999). Opieka nad pacjentem w stanie terminalnym (na przyk?adzie analizy przypadków konkretnej instytucji). Kultura i Spo?ecze?stwo, 43(2), 103–128.
Konecki, K. (2000). Studia z metodologii bada? jako?ciowych. Teoria ugruntowana. PWN.
Kubinowski, D. (2010). Jako?ciowe badania pedagogiczne. Filozofia, metodyka, ewaluacja. UMCS.
Lofland, J., Anderson, D., & Lofland, L. (2007). Analiza uk?adów spo?ecznych. Przewodnik metodologiczny po badaniach jako?ciowych. Scholar.
McCracken, J. (2020). Ethics as obligation: Reconciling diverging research practices with marginalized communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920964336
Niedbalski, J. (2018). Characteristics of Studies in an Environment of Persons with Intellectual Disability—Ethical and Methodological Deliberations, Polish Sociological Review 2(202), 279-298.
Niedbalski, J. (2016). Dylematy etyczne i problemy metodologiczne warsztatu badacza – rozwa?ania na przyk?adzie bada? prowadzonych w ?rodowisku osób z niepe?nosprawno?ci? intelektualn? oraz niepe?nosprawno?ci? fizyczn?. Studia AGH15/4, 37-53.
Niedbalski, J. (2013). ?y? i pracowa? w domu pomocy spo?ecznej: Socjologiczne studium interakcji personelu z upo?ledzonym umys?owo podopiecznymi. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ?ódzkiego.
Nowicka, E. (2005). Przyja?? jako narz?dzie pracy antropologa. In K. Zamiara (Ed.), Etyczne aspekty bada? spo?ecznych (pp. 195–210). UAM.
Rancew-Sikora, D., & Cymbrowski, B. (2016). W stron? socjologicznego uj?cia etyki bada? naukowych. Przegl?d Socjologii Jako?ciowej, 12(3), 22–39.
Silverman, D. (2007). Interpretacja danych jako?ciowych. PWN.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. SAGE Publications.
?l?zak, I. (2019). Social construction of sex work: Ethnography of escort agencies in Poland. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ?ódzkiego.
?l?zak, I. (2023). Komisja etyczna jako stra?nik, wróg, cenzor czy partner? Proces oceny etycznej bada? spo?ecznych z udzia?em osób ?wiadcz?cych us?ugi seksualne. Diametros–A Journal of Philosophy, 19(76), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1862
Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and futures. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Whitney, S. N. (2016). Institutional review boards: A flawed system of risk management. Research Ethics, 12(4), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016116649993
Wyka, A. (1993). Badacz spo?eczny wobec do?wiadczenia. IFiS PAN.
Zakrzewska-Manterys, E. (2010). Upo?ledzeni umys?owo: Poza granicami cz?owiecze?stwa. Uniwersytet Warszawski.